The Hockey Hall of Fame needs more Non-North American players

[Sturminator]

I agree that the HHOF has low standards for some players, but if we use the Dick Duff line then a lot of players aren't in the HHOF that should be

Heh...it's the Mendoza Line of the HHoF.

 

[GRob83]

The crazy part is that he wasn't top 10 in points any of those seasons. The writers (correctly) care more about points finishes than goals finishes.

That said, I'm not sure what Gartner really has on Bondra, other than playing in the 1980s, but the HHOF committee clearly cares about raw numbers.

It's harder to score a goal than it is to get an assist, why would a goal scorers lack of assists make him any less of a player than a playmaker who doesn't score goals? Bondra has a nearly identical point share to Nicklas Backstrom for his career in the same number of games yet Backstrom is regarded as a future hall of famer by almost everyone. If a player scores 2 goals and an assist while a teammate scores 1 goal and 2 assists who is getting player of the game? It's the guy with 2 goals every time.

 

[Professor What]

It's harder to score a goal than it is to get an assist, why would a goal scorers lack of assists make him any less of a player than a playmaker who doesn't score goals? Bondra has a nearly identical point share to Nicklas Backstrom for his career in the same number of games yet Backstrom is regarded as a future hall of famer by almost everyone. If a player scores 2 goals and an assist while a teammate scores 1 goal and 2 assists who is getting player of the game? It's the guy with 2 goals every time.

Are you talking about Hockey Reference point shares? Because if you are, you're not going to get anywhere bringing them up. Not the way to argue goals vs assists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Are you talking about Hockey Reference point shares? Because if you are, you're not going to get anywhere bringing them up. Not the way to argue goals vs assists.

if one wanted to pump a goal scorer's tires at the expense of a playmaker, I guess using a metric that counts each goal as worth 2 assists would be the way to go.

 

[GRob83]

if one wanted to pump a goal scorer's tires at the expense of a playmaker, I guess using a metric that counts each goal as worth 2 assists would be the way to go.

I wonder how different the All-Time Points leaders would look if:
Goals= 1.5 pts.
Primary Assist= 1.0 pts.
Secondary Assist= 0.5 pts.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I wonder how different the All-Time Points leaders would look if:
Goals= 1.5 pts.
Primary Assist= 1.0 pts.
Secondary Assist= 0.5 pts.

Bondra wouldn't look much better

 

[jigglysquishy]

The goals>>>assists crowd is almost exclusively from people who never played hockey.

 

[GRob83]

Bondra wouldn't look much better

I wouldn't be so sure. He already jumps from 45th All-Time actual goals to 33rd All-Time adjusted goals. Only 6 of the 500 goal scorers played less games and they are all HOF'ers. He's also tied for 13th all-time with Selanne and Beliveau in era adjusted goals per game.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Friendly reminder that the HR formula is awful and makes it hard to take your argument seriously.

 

[Sturminator]

If a player scores 2 goals and an assist while a teammate scores 1 goal and 2 assists who is getting player of the game? It's the guy with 2 goals every time.

This statement is patently false.

You ever watch Peter Forsberg play? I'm sure I could find games where he and one of his wings have that exact relative stat line where Forsberg got player of the game.

 

[GMR]

If Mike Gartner is in the Hall, Bondra at least has some kind of argument, though I agree with others he is not a must.

The Europeans who should really be a must are Mikhailov, Petrov, Maltsev, Vasiliev and Martinec...with Suchy, Holecek, Krutov, Kasatonov, Hlinka, Yakushev, and some others deserving a long look.

Yakushev got in last year.

For sure Martinec, Mikhailov, Holecek, and Firsov should be in. I believe the HHOF only wants one of these types of players inducted per year for their stupid TV show.

Also, I wonder if the war in the Ukraine will result in the Russian players having to wait several years.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I wouldn't be so sure. He already jumps from 45th All-Time actual goals to 33rd All-Time adjusted goals. Only 6 of the 500 goal scorers played less games and they are all HOF'ers. He's also tied for 13th all-time with Selanne and Beliveau in era adjusted goals per game.

Where do Selanne and Beliveau land in any other metric:?

As direct competition for awards it's pretty clear who people thought was better between Bondra and Selanne regardless of what metric you chose to cherry pick

 

[jigglysquishy]

Where do Selanne and Beliveau land in any other metric:?

As direct competition for awards it's pretty clear who people thought was better between Bondra and Selanne regardless of what metric you chose to cherry pick

The only reason people like Selanne to Bondra is the anti Euro bias!

 

[GRob83]

The only reason people like Selanne to Bondra is the anti Euro bias!

I'm not suggesting that Bondra was a better player than Selanne. In terms of era adjusted goal scoring (per hockey reference because I don't know of another source) they are comparable as goal scorers, which is the point of hockey (to score goals). Selanne played with prime Tkachuk, Zhamnov, Kariya, Sakic, Forsberg, Tanguay, Hejduk, Marleau, Nolan, Thornton, Getzlaf, Perry etc....Bondras most common linemates were Pivonka, Konowalchuk, Nikolishin, Bulis etc...even after the Capitals got Oates they rarely played together outside of the powerplay and same with Jagr. Bondras loyalty to the Capitals probably cost him a spot in the HHOF.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm not suggesting that Bondra was a better player than Selanne. In terms of era adjusted goal scoring (per hockey reference because I don't know of another source) they are comparable as goal scorers, which is the point of hockey (to score goals). Selanne played with prime Tkachuk, Zhamnov, Kariya, Sakic, Forsberg, Tanguay, Hejduk, Marleau, Nolan, Thornton, Getzlaf, Perry etc....Bondras most common linemates were Pivonka, Konowalchuk, Nikolishin, Bulis etc...even after the Capitals got Oates they rarely played together outside of the powerplay and same with Jagr. Bondras loyalty to the Capitals probably cost him a spot in the HHOF.

I'm not sure where you're getting this.

Thornton and Selanne were never teammates. He only played with a middling Marleau for 2 seasons.

He only played 35 games with Forsberg, and 78 with Sakic. Hejduk and Tanguay for just for that one season.

It was the Kariya/Selanne show from 1996-2002, when Selanne had most of his best years.

Even guys like Getzlaf and Perry, Selanne was 37 when they broke out.

They have a similair VsX7 for goals (48.3 to 47.2 for Selanne), but Selanne blows him away in points (92.7 to 72.0). Both are well below Beliveau.

 

[GRob83]

I'm not sure where you're getting this.

Thornton and Selanne were never teammates. He only played with a middling Marleau for 2 seasons.

He only played 35 games with Forsberg, and 78 with Sakic. Hejduk and Tanguay for just for that one season.

It was the Kariya/Selanne show from 1996-2002, when Selanne had most of his best years.

Even guys like Getzlaf and Perry, Selanne was 37 when they broke out.

They have a similair VsX7 for goals (48.3 to 47.2 for Selanne), but Selanne blows him away in points (92.7 to 72.0). Both are well below Beliveau.

I was just quickly glancing through the rosters and saw Thornton not realizing it was Scott
Still, who had the far better supporting cast throughout their career? Bondra was never in a position to accumulate a lot of assists. He was the only goal scorer on the Capitals, and they fed him the puck regularly. I'm surprised he never led the league in shots. As a goal scorer he did his job at a hall of fame pace, and again he was an excellent penalty killer and big time threat to score shorthanded which he did more than anyone over a 10 year span. Selanne played 370 more games than Bondra. If Bondra had 600 goals and 1000 points he'd be a hall of famer without question.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The goals>>>assists crowd is almost exclusively from people who never played hockey.

I believe that the sports reference family of websites were started by basketball fans. Makes a lot of their assumptions about hockey make more sense.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I've done a couple of statistical studies about goals, primary assists, and secondary assists. I couldn't find any meaningful difference in the value of goals and primary assists. (In fact, in one of the studies, primary assists were more valuable than goals - but looking at all the results together, I can't find any statistical support for the idea that goals are more valuable than primary assists).

It's true that secondary assists are less valuable. But they clearly don't have zero value, which is what the "primary points" metric suggests. I found secondary assists should have a weighting of (roughly) two-thirds of a goal. Maybe we can complicate things and weigh goals and primary assists by 3, and secondary assists by 2. Or, if we keep things simple, just count everything equally, which is the simplest solution and a reasonable approximation of reality.

 

[Sturminator]

I've done a couple of statistical studies about goals, primary assists, and secondary assists. I couldn't find any meaningful difference in the value of goals and primary assists. (In fact, in one of the studies, primary assists were more valuable than goals - but looking at all the results together, I can't find any statistical support for the idea that goals are more valuable than primary assists).

It's true that secondary assists are less valuable. But they clearly don't have zero value, which is what the "primary points" metric suggests. I found secondary assists should have a weighting of (roughly) two-thirds of a goal. Maybe we can complicate things and weigh goals and primary assists by 3, and secondary assists by 2. Or, if we keep things simple, just count everything equally, which is the simplest solution and a reasonable approximation of reality.

This.

The "secondary assists vampire" remains a mythical creature, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Hynh]

I believe that the sports reference family of websites were started by basketball fans. Makes a lot of their assumptions about hockey make more sense.

Their About page says baseball fans which is arguably even worse since the quality of baseball gamesheets from 100 years ago is higher than hockey gamesheets from 30 years ago. Just compare these two games

Brooklyn Robins vs Boston Braves Box Score: May 5, 1923 | Baseball-Reference.com

Brooklyn Robins beat Boston Braves (5-4). May 5, 1923, Attendance: 25000, Time of Game: 2:16. Visit Baseball-Reference.com for the complete box score, play-by-play, and win probability

www.baseball-reference.com

San Jose Sharks vs. Calgary Flames Box Score: February 10, 1993 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the San Jose Sharks vs. Calgary Flames game played on February 10, 1993 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

It also explains the awful February cutoff for player ages. What is a sensible cutoff right before spring training for them turns into an inane mid season cutoff for hockey

 

[Overrated]

The goals>>>assists crowd is almost exclusively from people who never played hockey.

Whenever I watch old reels goals are mentioned first and foremost. In Europe secondary assists were not even counted. In sports like soccer where each goal has a long set up people generally ignore assists all together which to me makes no sense at all. In fact as far as I know goalies aren't even rewarded a sv%. All they get is a big fat 0 as zero goals scored. That is what I like about the North American approach. Everything is so individualized there are so many statistics to use. At the same time all of these statistics are merely a way to approximate the performance of each player. It is not a mantra or some sort of an end all be all. The Canadians decided to award the points this way and there is nothing wrong with it but it would be silly to think that on average a goal doesn't have a higher value than an assist and the same could be said about a primary vs secondary assist, The fact that a secondary assist is worth the same as a goal and a "tertiary" assist is worth nothing is purely arbitrary.

I've done a couple of statistical studies about goals, primary assists, and secondary assists. I couldn't find any meaningful difference in the value of goals and primary assists. (In fact, in one of the studies, primary assists were more valuable than goals - but looking at all the results together, I can't find any statistical support for the idea that goals are more valuable than primary assists).

I would like to see a study which somehow arrived at the most ridiculous conclusion imaginable which is that on average an assist is worth more than a goal and what was their methodology, which is if such a study even exists and you didn't make it up.

The only thing I found with a quick google search was this article:

What is the objective value of an assist?

For anyone that has ever seen Gretzky thread a pass over to Jari Kurri, it is obvious that passing is vital to offensive production, but how does it compare to actually putting the puck in the net?…

statsbystokes.wordpress.com

So, how much is an assist worth. Well first assists are worth approximately 55% of a goal, and second assists are worth less than 19%.

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Boxscore]

I think players deserve to be in on merit, not due to their nationality, so I don't subscribe to the OP opinion per se. I'd rather look at a case by case basis. There are guys I don't feel belong in the Hall who are... and there's also some glaring omissions. I'd like to see Mogilny and Roenick in and Carbonneau out, for example.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I would like to see a study which somehow arrived at the most ridiculous conclusion imaginable which is that on average an assist is worth more than a goal and what was their methodology, which is if such a study even exists and you didn't make it up.

What would I possibly gain by saying that a study exists, if it didn't? Now that the search function appears to be working again, I'll post the links:

• Examining the value of the secondary assist
• Secondary assists - new study

The only thing I found with a quick google search was this article:

What is the objective value of an assist?

For anyone that has ever seen Gretzky thread a pass over to Jari Kurri, it is obvious that passing is vital to offensive production, but how does it compare to actually putting the puck in the net?…

statsbystokes.wordpress.com

So, how much is an assist worth. Well first assists are worth approximately 55% of a goal, and second assists are worth less than 19%.

Sounds about right to me.

I'm familiar with that article. At the most basic level, that study, and the first of my two article, uses the same conceptual approach. But there are three reasons why my approach was better.

First - I used a much larger data set. The article you linked has five years' worth of data. My first article has 11 years, and my second article has 12 years.

Second (this is the most significant difference) - the author used a "trial and error" approach, where he first tried to "fix" the value of primary assists, and only then did he try to set the value of secondary assists. A better approach is to measure everything simultaneously (otherwise, the interactions between different categories get ignored). You need tools that are a bit more sophisticated than trial and error (such as linear regression - which is one of the approaches I used in my first article).

Third - the author didn't provide evidence that he validated his data. (I did, in both of my articles). It's certainly possible that he did, but I have less confidence in an article where they didn't demonstrate that they have the right starting point.

 

[Overrated]

What would I possibly gain by saying that a study exists, if it didn't? Now that the search function appears to be working again, I'll post the links:

• Examining the value of the secondary assist
• Secondary assists - new study

I was strictly speaking about the value of a goal being less than the value of a primary assist. Of course the secondary assist is way less valuable than the primary. I think I also misread. I thought there was an actual study made by some institute or a university which concluded that goals are less important than primary assists. You might have concluded that yourself in your own calculations and of course since I am not a mathematician I can't disprove it but I very much doubt an actual study would conclude the value of an assist being higher on average than the value of a goal. That just makes no sense on a basic logical level. Every pass leading up to a goal is going to be progressively on average more valuable with the goal being the most. What exact % of course is something I can't determine with common sense.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

The Hall of Fame doesn't have enough non-NHL Europeans. It actually is the worst of all worlds there - it has enough token non-NHL Europeans where it pretends to represent the full world of hockey, but it really doesn't.

It represents NHL Europeans just fine.

Yeah- I keep worrying that they'll cough one up like Håkan Loob... and say "here, look at us!"

My not-entirely merit-based wish-list re: Hall of Fame inductions for future years:


1) Immediately: Starshinov (age 82) & Holecek (turns 79 next month).
2) Next: Pospisil (turns 79 in 2 months) and Mikhailov (turned 78 2 months ago).
3) After that, Maltsev (turns 74 in 2 months) & Martinec (turned 73 2 months ago).

Let's get some of these greats into the Hall, before they die on us. Then, we can avoid graceless ex lax smooth moves like not even considering Suchy- even after his death in early 2021- and instead hacking up the likes of Kevin Lowe.

Then, after we outrace grim death on that front, we can turn our attention to posthumous selections like Suchy, Firsov, Krutov, Petrov...